Susan Mitchell questions the motives of Gina Rinehart

                                                       Gina Rinehart

               

                                   OPINION     by Susan Mitchell
                  THE MOST DANGEROUS WOMAN IN AUSTRALIA?

WHY has Gina Rinehart purchased enough shares to get herself three seats on the board of Fairfax?
Has she ever been a contributor or a player in the media? No.
Has she suddenly developed a passion for print? No.
Does she consider that owning three seats on the board will give her editorial control over the two major newspapers in the nation? Yes.
Why won’t she agree to signing their Charter of Independence?
Is it because that means she will have no control over what individual journalists write? Yes.
The board of directors has the right to hire and fire editors of its papers, but that clearly isn’t enough power for Rinehart to yield.
She has form in how she likes to micro-manage power in the media. As a member of the board of Channel 10, she insisted on Andrew Bolt being given his own program. Why? Because he possibly agrees with everything she stands for. That is, no carbon tax, no mining super tax, minimal government interference and tax breaks for the wealthy. Even when Bolt’s show rated poorly, Rinehart insisted it be continued.
Why does she wield this power over programming when other members of the board don’t appear to want to? Because with a net worth of $28 billion, she is the richest woman in the world; within five years, she could become the richest person in the world.
I am not castigating her because she is wealthy. Not all wealthy people want to use their money to have the necessary power to make even more money. Warren Buffet has given away more than $20 billion to good causes. So has Bill Gates. The world is full of generous, philanthropic entrepreneurs, oil magnates and even mining magnates. Even Gina’s children have a hard time getting any of their inheritance.
So what? you may argue. It’s her money, she should be able to do what she likes with it. If the journalists at Fairfax don’t want to do her bidding, they can get another job. Or they can organise a collective and buy the mastheads themselves.  Workers can’t dictate who can buy the business they work for.
But the media business is different. Why? Because it has the power to persuade, to disguise self-interest as argument, to blur fact and propaganda, to slant news reports. This is the power to brainwash entire populations, to make and break governments.
In case you think I am getting carried away, remind yourself that we have just been witnesses to what happens when wealth, media control and governments collude. If you think this happens only in Britain, you are either wilfully stupid or purposely naive. Both sides of politics have fitted their policies to suit the wishes of the Murdoch empire.  From all first-hand accounts, he didn’t even have to ask.
Even though Murdoch has print running in his veins, he is astute enough to realise that he also needs to control other media outlets. Apart from owning 70 per cent of all newspapers in Australia, he is now planning to also own 100 per cent of Fox Sports and 50 per cent of Foxtel. Would you call that a monopoly?
All of commercial talk radio and television dances to his tune and even the ABC has been known to curtsy lately. And he is worth only $8 billion; just imagine what power Gina Rinehart could wield with her $28 billion and growing empire.
Between them they could soon own every major media outlet in the country, and in a few years she could own them all. Given the way in which governments bend their policies to accommodate them now, imagine what the future would look like.
So why wouldn’t a government legislate to prevent this happening? Because it wouldn’t be a government for long.
 As the British historian Lord Acton wrote: “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Rinehart doesn’t even have to pretend she is interested in newspapers or television stations intent on producing balanced, quality journalism. So what if they publish what she wants and they go broke? It’s just her lunch money she playing with. Whatever happens, it will be her way or the highway.
And where is democracy in all this? Don’t we get a say? Of course we do but who will make the average Australian informed enough and aware enough about what could happen when both controlling media corporations are run by two people determined to tell us what we should be thinking and who we should be voting for.  Dissenting voices will be heard or read only on the margins of the media. This is not democracy as we have known it.
It’s true the Murdoch empire has taken a recent hit but it hasn’t been terminal. It is also true that Rupert Murdoch is no longer young. Gina Rinehart is at least 30 years younger than him and at least three times wealthier. Her foray into media moguldom has only just begun. Wait until she really sinks her teeth into it.
It’s not the changes in technology that are killing newspapers as we have known them.  We have seen what the monopoly of Coles and Woolworths has done to grocery prices. Just wait until Rupert and Gina rule our media.
This is why she is the most dangerous woman in Australia, if not ultimately the world.
susanmitchell.com.au